A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Monday, 30 November 2009

I referred on Saturday to Reverend Jack Sullivan's meeting with Cherie Blair (pictured).

Jack, who was healed through Cardinal Newman's intercession in 2001, requested that references to the meeting be removed from the published recollections of his recent visit to England.

I am pleased to note that news of Jack's request is spreading. It was reported in both the Telegraph and the Mail today. I've also heard that reference to the meeting has also been graciously removed from the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales website and from the website of the archdiocese of Birmingham.

"Unfortunately, Jack had not been made aware of Mrs Blair’s public opposition to the teaching of the Church,’ said a spokesman for Birmingham Oratory which was founded by John Henry Cardinal Newman. "He undertook the visit in good faith, believing Mrs Blair to be simply a prominent Catholic. As soon as he was made aware of Mrs Blair’s record of public dissent from the Church’s teaching, Jack requested that all reference to meeting her be removed from the published recollections of his visit."

The Belfast high court has this morning ruled in favour of SPUC's challenge of government abortion guidance in Northern Ireland.

Lord Justice Girvan ruled in favour of SPUC's challenge on two grounds. SPUC argued that because abortion remains illegal in Northern Ireland, it was wrong to expect medical providers to give non-directive counselling to women who might be considering abortion. SPUC also argued that the government's guidance was wrong regarding non-participation in abortion (conscientious objection). The judge ruled in favour of SPUC on these points. The judge awarded costs against the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

"We are very pleased that the court has highlighted some of the problems with the health department’s abortion guidance. We hope that the department will now take seriously many of the concerns which were largely disregarded when the guidelines were being drafted.

"Abortion is not health care. In Northern Ireland it is a criminal offence. It is simply extraordinary that a government department should have issued guidance on criminal legislation and not have once mentioned the victim of the crime. In illegal abortion the primary victim is the unborn child and any new guidance that the department brings forward needs to take fully into account the duty of care and the legal protection owed to the child before birth.

"Abortion doesn’t only kill children it also hurts women. There is a huge amount of evidence that abortion can damage the physical and mental health of women. If the department is serious about providing aftercare for women hurt by abortion then health officials cannot continue to ignore the evidence of post-abortion trauma. More needs to be done to warn women of the consequences of abortion but there has to be more help for women facing a crisis pregnancy as well.

"The law in Northern Ireland protects both women and children and new guidance must reflect that."

Saturday, 28 November 2009

"This is a warning to Catholics, that they can't vote in favour of this and that they won't be able to receive communion unless they ask forgiveness ... They are in an objective state of sin".

This is what Juan Antonion Martinez Camino (pictured right), the spokesman of Spain's Catholic bishops' conference, told a news conference about Spanish Members of Parliament who had voted in favour of a bill to make abortion more readily available.

I'm in Sydney, Australia, for my son's graduation at Campion College where one of the guests will be Cardinal Pell, the redoubtable church leader who's known for taking a similar position on such matters.

Pro-lifers and pro-life strategists should never underestimate the significance of such statements for the following reasons:

Such statements reflect accurately the gravity of voting to kill the innocent. We would not be surprised by bishops refusing Communion to politicians who would vote to kill bishops. Their refusal would reflect the seriousness of the politicians' sin in voting in such a way. The same is true of bishops' refusal of communion to politicians voting to kill unborn babies.

Such statements have the effect of building a great campaign for life, called for in Pope John Paul II's great encyclical on pro-life matters Evangelium Vitae, 95, in which he said: "What is urgently called for is a general mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life".

The "united ethical effort", to which Pope John Paul II refers, comes about because when the bishops make such appropriate, bold, statements, they reflect and strengthen the sentiment of ordinary people throughout the world whose respect for the fundamental human right to life is written in their hearts. Abortion supporters both inside and outside the churches will know for certain they have lost their campaign when bishops' conferences throughout the world follow the Spanish bishops' example.

As I said in my talk (also in Spanish and Italian) at the 4th World Congress for Life in Spain earlier this month:

"Here in Spain, the unity between the pro-life movement and your Catholic bishops on life issues is your greatest asset in your battle against your government's attacks on human life, marriage, parental rights and responsibilities, and the family. The loss of that unity would be the greatest threat to your pro-life and pro-family battle. The Church and the pro-life movement throughout Europe must learn from your example."

It turns out that Jack was taken, in an unscheduled arrangement, to see Cherie Blair for a private visit, without being told about her prominent campaigning opposition to Catholic Church teaching on the culture of life. The Newman Cause had been completely unaware of the visit, reported in Times Online (‘Discovering Newman the priest’) and is in this week’s edition of the Catholic Herald (November 27th ‘Jack Sullivan reflects’ p. 11).

Mrs Blair is pictured above cutting a special 75th anniversary birthday cake for FPA and offering the cameraman a condom.

The Newman Cause blogpost states:

"As soon as he was made aware of Mrs Blair’s record of public dissent from the Church’s teaching, Jack requested that all reference to meeting her be removed from the published recollections of his visit. The article on Times Online was duly amended yesterday (November 26th), but unfortunately Jack’s request came too late to remove the reference to Mrs Blair from the print version of the Herald.

"The conjunction of Mrs Blair’s ‘conscientious’ dissent from the teaching of the Church with Jack Sullivan’s apparent endorsement of her could do harm to Newman’s reputation, and that is our reason for posting this clarification. Newman is indeed the great teacher of the rights and duties of conscience. It is of the greatest importance that his teaching is not used to make him the patron of Catholics, like Cherie Blair and others, who in the name of conscience practice dissent from the Church’s teaching ..."

"Amen" to that I say. What on earth is the motivation behind arranging such a visit, without telling Reverend Jack Sullivan the truth about Cherie Blair? Make sure you read the full blogpost, especially Catholics - who need to know what's being done in their name.

Christine Hudson is a mother and a leading SPUC activist from Plymouth. She's pictured here at this year's SPUC conference on the left, with (l-r) Peter C. Smith of SPUC Evangelicals, her son Benedict, Rev. Arnold Culbreath, and her daughters Rosie and Anna Hudson. Christine has sent me the critique below of the sex education policy in Britain. Do please read it carefully, as it gives you valuable material to use when opposing the government's plans to make sex education compulsory - please also read and respond to SPUC's campaign alert

Compulsory sex education is against our children's best interests

Christine Hudson of SPUC Plymouth

Compulsory sex education from age five comes as no surprise, given that the nanny state has been pursuing an ideological agenda in this area for many years. Such legislation, nonetheless, does come as a further blow to the:

pro-life movement

autonomy of parents

innocence of our children and their absolute right to mature at their own rate without sex featuring disproportionately on their horizon.

Abortion and the abortifacient morning-after pill are the lynchpins of the government’s teenage pregnancy strategy. The aim is to rid children and young women of unplanned pregnancies. These pregnancies are the result of sexual activity encouraged by government and our society, with little or no attention paid to the age of consent.

Compulsory sex education will allow your children or grandchildren to be de-sensitised about their bodies. Children will be exposed to the facts of the sexual act from key stage two (age seven), whilst learning that they don't have to have babies if they don't wish. This approach won't improve the teenage pregnancy and abortion rates. There has never been so much sex education or contraception, yet Britain's teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are Europe's highest.

Dr Malcom Potts, IPPF's first medical director, and a consultant on contraception and family health, has written:

“As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate” (1)

and

“No society has controlled its fertility.....without recourse to a significant number of abortions. In fact abortion is often the starting place in the control of fertility.” (2)

"Twenty years ago women were more resigned to unwanted pregnancy, but as they have become more conscious of preventing conception, so they have come to request terminations when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the availabilithy of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate."(1)

directing our children that sex is only for pleasure and that any unwanted pregnancy can be got rid of.

Parents whose children attend faith schools need to be reminded that these schools are also subject to compulsory sex education. The Catholic Education Service (CES) in England and Wales has welcomed the imposition of compulsory sex education. This welcome is despite the fact that Catholic teaching says otherwise. The Pontifical Council for the Family has written:

"Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy". (1)

"Parents are the first and most important educators of their children, and they also possess a fundamental competency in this area: they are educators because they are parents. They share their individual mission with other individuals or institutions, such as the Church and the State. But the mission of education must always be carried out in accordance with a proper application of the principle of subsidiarity. (2)

The CES knows that, although school nurses must follow guidelines laid down by school governors when in a classroom situation, in a one-to-one setting (such as in a confidential clinic), they act in their capacity as health professionals. The guidelines from the department of health they follow in that capacity don't sit happily with pro-life beliefs!

Compulsory sex education is a bitter pill. Once passed, legislation is hard to dismantle, as pro-lifers know in their fight to repeal pro-abortion laws around the world. Compulsory sex education is a further completed tick-box on the list of Western Marxism (e.g. the Frankfurt School proposals). The Polish church authorities, more astute than the CES, have recently admitted:

"We have to remember who was the first to introduce the idea of sex education. It was communist ideologue Gyorgy Lukacs in Hungary, who thought promiscuity was the best method to fight the institution of marriage, in order to fight Christianity."

With the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, the benefits of saturation sex education have yet to be demonstrated. It has been known for many years that oral contraception can act in an abortifacient mode and that a high percentage of young girls presenting to doctors with unplanned pregnancies were using contraception. It is also well known that teenage contraceptive user failure rates are high. Despite its claim that parents play an important role in the matter of teenage pregnancies, the government has in fact been eroding parental rights through the years:

1973: National Health (Reorganisation) Act allowed birth control for all, including children.

1974: Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS) memorandum of guidance (section G) advised doctors that they could provide contraception to girls “of whatever age” without parental consent of knowledge.

1977: DHSS memorandum of guidance advised doctors that they could refer under-age girls for abortions without parental knowledge or consent.

1984: The Court of Appeal ruling in the Gillick case, which challenged government guidance. For 10 months it was unlawful for doctors to provide contraceptives to under-age girls without parental knowledge or consent. During this 10-month period the pregnancy rates for under-16s remained unchanged, while the number of pregnancies actually declined slightly from 9,096 to 8,829.

1985: The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal's judgment in Gillick after the DHSS appealed. The Lords reinstated the previous policy but insisted that secrecy from parents should be “most unusual” and that doctors should only withhold information from parents “in the most exceptional cases”.

1986: "Safe Sex" condom campaign to combat HIV/AIDS effectively ignored the Lords' qualifications in Gllick by promoting the pill and condoms to teenagers of any age without parental knowledge or consent.

1992: “The health of the nation: a strategy for health in England” white paper aimed to reduce the rate of conceptions amongst the under-16s by at least 50% by the year 2000. It failed.

1999: “Teenage pregnancy report” aimed to reduce under-18 pregnancies by half by 2010. This is also destined to fail.

2000: Revised guidance by the Department of Education on sex and relationship education. The guidance encouraged the provision of contraceptive advice and supplies to under-age children by health professionals operating on school premises and in confidence if the child wished. School nurses, employed by the local primary care trust, although working on school premises are not bound by any education legislation, permitting the provision of the contraceptive pill and the abortifacient morning-after pill without parental knowledge or consent.

2000: morning-after pill released on prescription with no age restrictions.

2001: morning-after pill released for sale without prescription to over-16s.

2002: MAP can be obtained free from the Family Planning Association, doctors' surgeries and school nurses.

2004: Department of health revised guidance on contraception, sexual health and reproductive health services (including abortion) for under-16s. The guidance places strong emphasis on the duty of confidentiality. Good-practice guidance made it explicit that under-16s did not require parental consent or notification to procure an abortion.

2006 (Jan): Sue Axon lost her court bid for the right to be informed if her daughter was seeking an abortion. Her case challenged both Gillick and the 2004 guidance above.

2006: Two government documents, “Looking for a school nurse?” and “School nurse: practice development resource pack” were issued with the aim of expanding or developing a school nursing service. This aim would include providing contraceptive advice and ‘support[ing] young women to access services to make timely choices about emergency contraception, pregnancy or abortion.....and remind young people where they can access confidential support and information”, as well as providing ‘emergency contraception’ (i.e. morning-after pills) and pregnancy testing on school premises (with school-governors' permission).

2006 (April): Girls as young as 12 given free morning-after pills over the counter in chemists' shops without the parental knowledge, if primary care trusts discern a problem in their area with teenage pregnancies.

2008: The government says it wants a school-nurse clinic in every secondary school.

2008: Parents excluded from a government review of sex education delivery in schools.

2009-2010: From April, doctors receive payments for giving teenagers advice on sexual health and encouraging young women to use long-acting contraceptive implants, injections or the coil (all of which can act abortifaciently), if they present for morning-after pills or abortion. Available without parental knowledge.

In reality, just as parents have been deceived and undermined by these actions, so, in many schools, sex education policies don't do what they say and only pay lip-service only to the role of parents. Many school sex education policies will contain the following line or the like:

“Endeavours to involve parents and all other interested parties in sex education issues, whilst complementing and supporting the role of parents who are key figures in helping children with the physical and emotional aspects of growing up.”

Many parents will, as I have discovered over the years, find these extremely hollow words.

The issue of confidential clinics is just as contentious. Jim Knight, the schools minister, said in a parliamentary answer (3 Oct. 2006):

“The nature and scope of health services in a school are for the school governing body to decide. Where schools are developing links with health as part of extended services, the Education Act 2002 requires them to consult widely before putting services in place.”

My personal experience with a secondary school in Plymouth is that the school and local education authority (LEA) are devious. Although the head-teacher has admitted that the school provides a service which sign-posts pupils to confidential services, the school denies that this is an extended service because it does not actually deliver this service on school property. The school thus maintains that government guidance does not apply. Therefore, despite the guidance, most parents at the school continue to be ignorant of this clinic and what it offers!

In complaining to the LEA, I was incredulous to find that the LEA was happy to accept the school’s word that it doesn’t offer a sign-posting service. The LEA admits it has no powers to enforce its guidance upon schools. Such are the problems that pro-life parents are up against

It is vital that we all make our anger felt over the new proposals to make sex education compulsory. These proposals are not in the best interests of the next generation. It is imperative that parents, grandparents, ministers of religion and anyone concerned by these developments write to teachers, head teachers, chairs of governors, priests, vicars, LEAs and newspapers to convey their concerns and disapproval. Please also read and respond to SPUC's campaign alert.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

SPUC has launched a major multi-faceted campaign against the government's plans to make sex education compulsory. The legal basis and operating principles of the government's plans are contained in its Children, Schools and Families bill, which is awaiting its second reading in the House of Commons.

Not since the Abortion Act 1967 has there been such a determined effort to promote universal access to abortion, seeking to expand abortion access for children under the age of consent without parental knowledge or consent. It is vitally important that parents, teachers, clergy and all concerned with protecting children both brief themselves and take immediate action to oppose the government's plans.

The Catholic Education Service (CES)'s general support for the government's plans is a disgrace. The CES must resist this most terrible attack on unborn children, young people and the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children. Anything less will be a historic betrayal. Without a total reversal of policy, Catholics may well feel that not since the 16th century reformation would have Catholic bishops so supinely capitulated to the demands of the state. The government's intentions are so blatant that we can be in no doubt as to the pressures on Catholic schools and as to the dangers in store for children and young people if this legislation is passed. Pope Pius XI wrote in his famous 1937 encyclical against Nazism:

"We address Our special greetings to the Catholic parents. Their rights and duties as educators, conferred on them by God, are at present the stake of a campaign pregnant with consequences. The Church cannot wait to deplore the devastation of its altars, the destruction of its temples, if an education, hostile to Christ, is to profane the temple of the child's soul consecrated by baptism ... Then the violation of temples is nigh, and it will be every one's duty to sever his responsibility from the opposite camp, and free his conscience from guilty cooperation with such corruption. The more the enemies attempt to disguise their designs, the more a distrustful vigilance will be needed, in the light of bitter experience ... [D]o not forget this: none can free you from the responsibility God has placed on you over your children. None of your oppressors, who pretend to relieve you of your duties can answer for you to the eternal Judge, when he will ask: 'Where are those I confided to you?' May every one of you be able to answer: 'Of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one' (John xviii. 9)."

write to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, opposing compulsory sex education. Send a copy of your message to your own MP. You can write to them at: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA or email them via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps

write to your local schools. Urge them to oppose the plans to make sex education compulsory. Also ask schools to write to Ed Balls MP (secretary of state for children, schools and families), to the prime minister and to the local MP.

I'm grateful to Norman Wells and the Family Education Trust for their permission to reproduce extracts from their latest update on the government's sex education plans:

"The Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA) [held a consultation] as part of the government's larger consultation on Curriculum Reform. The QCDA report on consultation responses reveals that over two-thirds (68 per cent) of respondents disagreed with making PSHE education a statutory subject, and 79 per cent agreed that parents, carers and guardians should be allowed to maintain the right to withdraw their children from the sex and relationships education element of PSHE education. When the full 12-week consultation did not deliver the results the government had hoped for, in October it quietly commissioned a survey of 1,791 adults and 1,661 parents and asked some leading questions aimed at securing a semblance of public support for making PSHE education statutory and for limiting the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education. The government conveniently ignored the results of the public consultation and chose to give greater weight to the October survey than to the full public consultation.

"The government has no evidence that children who are currently being withdrawn from sex education classes are at greater risk of teenage pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections and no evidence that imposing sex education on them regardless of their parents' views will bring any positive benefit.

"Dr Trevor Stammers, a trustee of the Family Education Trust, debated the government's proposals for sex education with Gill Frances, the Chairman of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group on a recent edition of the BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show. In the course of the interview, Jeremy Vine asked Gill Frances whether young people would be taught to value their virginity in sex education classes. His question was met with a stunned silence. Struggling to regain her composure, Gill Frances said she could not answer that, adding that the subject would be taught 'in a framework of values', and that sexual activity should take place in 'mutual relationships - never coercive', 'in trust with each other'."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.ukSign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email servicesFollow SPUC on TwitterJoin SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://www.socialmarking.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Social Bookmarking&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Catholics will be interested to know that Monsignor Philip J. Reilly (pictured), founder of the Helpers of God's Precious Infants, will be visiting England next month. Here are the details of his visit:

Friday 4 December: Talk on “Reasons for hope in this epic struggle for life.”
7.30pm St. James’ Spanish Place church hall, 22 George Street, London, W1U 3QY.

Monday, 23 November 2009

The newly-revealed case of Rom Houben (pictured right) who was misdiagnosed for 23 years as being in a coma-like state, challenges the pro-euthanasia mentality which exists regarding severely incapacitated patients.

Mr Houben, a Belgian man, was paralysed by a car accident. Until three years ago, Mr Houben had been misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS, more correctly termed PNS or persistent non-responsive state). Doctors assumed he was unconscious, when in fact he has near-normal brain function and can hear and understand his surroundings. Following new tests which revealed the misdiagnosis, Mr Houben has been provided with equipment to read and type.

Janet Thomas of No Less Human, a group within SPUC Pro-Life, told the media today:

"This case highlight the huge dangers in assessing profoundly disabled people as having lives not worth living. Surely, with all the medical resources at our disposal, a truly civilised society would be concentrating on saving and improving life, not terminating it. It is encouraging to hear that Rom Houben has not succumbed to despair but is setting out to enjoy the life he has. We should remember that we call ourselves human 'beings'. It is what we are, not what we can do, that makes us unique.

"Rom Houben is not the first example of a person diagnosed as being in PVS but in fact being aware of the world around him. Jean Dominique Bauby, former editor of Elle, wrote the book 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly' while only able to blink an eyelid. Marian Sallery [1] of north Wales spent 11 years unable to communicate although fully aware of the world around. She was not diagnosed with Locked-in Syndrome until after her death. Keith Andrews of the Royal Hospital for Neurodisability [2] found in 1996 that, of 40 people diagnosed as being in PVS, nearly half were completely misdiagnosed.

"According to some criteria, PVS is regarded as permanent after the first year. Following the 1992 Bland judgment, and under the Mental Capacity Act and related professional guidance, such patients are in danger of being dehydrated to death."

Sunday, 22 November 2009

Lithuania is to be admired for standing up to the powers that be and striking a blow for national sovereignty against an attempt by the European Parliament (EP) to condemn their recently approved child-centred legislation. In particular we must admire their willingness to stand firm for parents as the primary educators of their children in the face of an attempt to indoctrinate children and repress parents by trying to impose novel doctrines of human sexuality on their children.

Slovak MEP Anna Zaborska was quoted at the time as saying "Today a national law from Lithuania which aims to protect minors from sexualisation by society is condemned by the EU institutions. I consider our meeting to be a manipulation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This text is not a legally binding instrument. The EU Parliament is ignoring the legitimacy of the national Parliament of a Member State. The EU Parliament also requests an Opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency, but this Agency has no mandate to assess the legal quality of a national law”.

In response to the unacceptable interference by the European Parliament in its internal affairs the Lithuanian Parliament on 10 November adopted a resolution seeking to overrule the EP resolution. This Lithuanian resolution deals with the illegitimacy of the EP resolution having no Treaty basis thus rendering it illegal, but it is nonetheless a "soft law" measure. This is particularly important as the EP is more powerful now under the Treaty of Lisbon.

The resolution called on the Lithuanian cabinet to file suit by Nov 17th in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg pointing out that the EP resolution lacked legitimacy and demanding that it should be invalidated. The Lithuanian resolution also dismissed the EP resolution as an “unlawful action caused by lack of competences” and “may serve as a dangerous precedent” if not invalidated.

Friday, 20 November 2009

Congratulations to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales who have delivered a powerful official response to the set of draft guidelines on assisted suicide drawn up by the Director of Public Prosecutions, describing them as "unacceptable in a civilised society".

Archbishop Vincent Nichols is reported as saying that the DPP's guidance risks "creating categories of people who are given less protection in the law and therefore runs the risk of seeing those categories of people as less worthy of the protection of the law" such as those who are disabled, or have a history of suicide attempts.

Professor David Jones, professor of bioethics at St Mary's University College, is reported as saying "I think that there is a danger that it could be perceived as a cloak for murder".

SPUC Pro-Life has produced a briefing to help you respond to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)'s consultation on guidelines for prosecuting cases of assisted suicide.

It lists factors that will count against the DPP bringing a prosecution - these include things like the victim being disabled, and that the victim spontaneously asked the suspect for help (this is quite ludicrous – as the victim will be dead by the time). This policy will be used to sanction help for suicides in England and Wales, as well as those who help people go abroad to kill themselves.

I am disappointed that Kieran Conry, Catholic bishop of Arundel and Brighton, has again questioned papal teaching on contraception, specifically as found in the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI (pictured). In his latest pastoral letter, Bishop Conry writes:

"[Some Catholics] campaign on the moral issues of the day – someone said recently that a person’s attitude to Humanae Vitae was a ‘litmus test’ of being a Catholic, whereas many might not know what Humanae Vitae is. These are all undoubtedly important issues, but they will never get anywhere near expressing our faith in its entirety, and we can ask if some of these questions are actually fundamental to faith at all."

This latest pastoral letter of Bishop Conry mirrors an interview he gave to The Catholic Herald in December in which the bishop was quoted, inter alia, as saying [extracts]:

"I would disagree that [the teaching of Humanae Vitae is] a key teaching ... It's not a life issue ... [Abortion and Humanae Vitae are] two completely different issues."

Interviewer Andrew M. Brown:

"Does it matter if people disobey that teaching?"

Bishop Conry:

"In the great scheme of things I don't think it's high up the list."

Interviewer Andrew M. Brown:

"Was Humanae Vitae a mistake?"

Bishop Conry:

"I don't know. I don't know."

Interviewer Andrew M. Brown:

"But is the teaching itself wrong?"

Bishop Conry:

"It could be. It's not an infallible teaching."

Interviewer Andrew M. Brown:

"So in a sense it's a matter of opinion?

Bishop Conry:

"Well, it's... It is."

Earlier in the interview, the bishop asserted unequivocally that:

"We've got first of all massive climatic change heading our way inexorably."

"The claim that man-made carbon dioxide omissions threaten to cause catastrophic global warming is a scientific theory and one that must be considered seriously and objectively. As it is a theory, it cannot be asserted with certainty that people will die if developed countries don't agree to further reductions in carbon omissions ...Whatever the evidence regarding man-made global warming, the right to life and the right to found a family are fundamental, universal human rights..."

Regarding the link between contraception and life issues, which Bishop Conry denies, the late Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (13):

"[T]he negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality" which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected ... [D]espite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree ... The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious."

Bishop Conry's view of the importance of Humanae Vitae is starkly at variance to that of Pope Benedict, who said in May last year:

"The teaching expressed by the Encyclical Humanae Vitae...conforms with the fundamental structure through which life has always been transmitted since the world's creation, with respect for nature and in conformity with its needs. Concern for human life and safeguarding the person's dignity require us not to leave anything untried so that all may be involved in the genuine truth of responsible conjugal love in full adherence to the law engraved on the heart of every person."

Bishop Conry should therefore read the analysis of Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the "supreme court" of the Catholic Church). According to Archbishop Burke, Pope Benedict has emphasised in his latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate that the message of Humanae vitae is fundamental to achieving authentic human development:

"It is instructive to note that Pope Benedict XVI, in his most recent encyclical letter on the Church's social doctrine, makes special reference to Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, underscoring its importance "for delineating the fully human meaning of the development that the Church proposes" (Caritas in veritate, no. 15). Pope Benedict XVI makes clear that the teaching in Humanae vitae was not simply a matter of "individual morality," declaring: 'Humanae vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium vitae' (Caritas in veritate, no. 15).

" ... The respect for the integrity of the conjugal act is essential to the context for the advancement of the culture of life."

I am concerned that the fear of man-made climate change is being used to foster misanthropy, such as the anti-human practices of abortion, contraception and population control.

UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund) issued a report this week which argued that climate change should be combatted by reducing population growth through contraception. UNFPA, one of the world's leading anti-life agencies, is complicit in China's brutal population control programme. The core of that programme is a one-child policy implemented by forced abortions, forced sterilisations, compulsory fittings of abortifacient birth control devices, abandonment of children and deliberate killing of orphans through neglect. Coercion is exercised through stiff penalties which include extortionate fines, destruction of property, imprisonment and even torture.

"It is inadmissible that those who have control of the wealth and resources of mankind should try to resolve the problem of hunger by forbidding the poor to be born."

The claim that man-made carbon dioxide omissions threaten to cause catastrophic global warming is a scientific theory and one that must be considered seriously and objectively. As it is a theory, it cannot be asserted with certainty that people will die if developed countries don't agree to further reductions in carbon omissions. What can be asserted with certainty is that abortion kills millions of innocent human beings every year; and that there is an ever-increasing push to promote abortion and population control in the developing world. Whatever the evidence regarding man-made global warming, the right to life and the right to found a family are fundamental, universal human rights enshrined in legally-binding international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which marks its 20th anniversary today.

The bill reflects the recommendations of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group 's report. Clauses 11 to 14 of the bill make sex education compulsory and set out the principles under which schools must teach sex education. The principles require that sex education "reflects a reasonable range of...cultural and other perspectives" and promotes "equality", "diversity" and "rights". The bill also says that schools must "have regard" to government guidance on how to implement the principles. (Our Notes section of our media release today has further detail.)

There can be no doubt the government will use the bill, if passed, to promote abortion in schools. The bill's principles will be used to ensure that pro-abortion propaganda dominates the content of sex education. Schoolgirls will be told that they have a right to abortion, that abortion is virtually harmless and that pro-abortion agencies provide good sexual health services. 'Equality' and 'diversity' will be used to suppress opposition to abortion. The abolition of parents' right to withdraw older children from sex education classes will ensure that no child leaves state schooling without having been brainwashed with an pro-abortion mentality.

Parents, teachers and clergy should contact MPs immediately in protest against the government's plans, urging MPs to speak out in parliament against them.

"Those seeking to develop civilised values which respect the sanctity of human life should be encouraged by this vote. In spite of all the money, media support and propaganda of the euthanasia lobby, many politicians recognise the dangers to public safety in introducing such legislation. This victory for civilised values joins the recent defeat of a similar bill in Tasmania, as well as the repeated votes by the British House of Lords against assisted suicide."

The BBC has confirmed that the Children, Schools and Families Bill will be part of the government's legislative programme in the new parliamentary year, which began with today's Queen's Speech.

The government's plans to make sex education compulsory will undermine child safety by initiating children into an adult culture of abortion and sexual activity. The government has made clear that all schools following the national curriculum, including faith schools, must teach children about abortion and contraception in a so-called anti-discriminatory way. This means that children may well be taught that abortion is a legal right. It will certainly ratchet up the current policy of arranging secret abortions without parental knowledge or consent.

In addition, the government's planned abolition of parents' right to withdraw older schoolchildren from sex education classes will undermine child safety by undermining parents' role as their children's primary educators. This role is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

Wesley J. Smith, a leading American bioethicist, addressed anti-euthanasia activists last night at the Cadogan Hotel, London. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, was there and he has sent me a picture (right) and the points below from Wesley's talk. Wesley is pictured with the Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury, who kindly hosted the meeting. Mr Smith told the meeting:

There is a push to legalise a broad array of private killing.

There is no real moral distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia. They are like one leg following the other when walking.

The push for euthanasia is based on a two-part ideology: firstly, that killing is an acceptable solution to human suffering, and secondly, autonomy. This ideology represents a radical remaking of society, from one predicated on equality to one in which people's lives exist on different tiers of value.

In our polyglot, multi-cultural society, law has become the means by which the morality of actions is judged.

The criteria in the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)'s draft guidelines is the same as the criteria in Margo MacDonald's Scottish bill: assisting suicide should not be prosecuted where the deceased was terminally ill, neurologically degenerating, or seriously physically disabled. Scottish euthanasia activists are far more candid than their counterparts in England or elsewhere. The 2002 law allowing euthanasia in The Netherlands had its origins in prosecutorial guidelines which were relaxed at the behest of judges in the 1970s.

In quadraplegic patients, depression is no higher after five years of quadraplegia than among the general population. The Hollywood film Million Dollar Baby, however, sent the message that people with quadraplegics are better off dead.

Assisted suicide/euthanasia is not a medical act, as it can be performed by lay people. In The Netherlands, the euthanasia lobby is calling for lay people to perform assisted suicide/euthanasia.

The 1995 case of Myrna Lebov, who had multiple sclerosis (MS) and who was coerced into suicide by her husband George DeLury, shows the danger of decriminalising assisted suicide. DeLury had convinced many people that his wife had wanted to commit suicide and that he had assisted her suicide out of compassion. It was later revealed that DeLury had coerced her into suicide because he resented having to care for her. Under the English DPP's draft guidelines, someone cleverer than DeLury in covering his tracks could get away with it. George DeLury's resentment of caring for his wife is similar to the resentment expressed by Jenni Murray, the BBC broadcaster, at the idea of caring for her elderly mother.

Although the authors of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) are well-intentioned, there is serious reason to believe that it may be used for back-door euthanasia. Palliative sedation is very rarely required, but according to The Telegraph, it is used in 16.5 percent of relevant cases, which is double the rate in The Netherlands. I have never heard of so many people needing palliative sedation. President Obama's plans for universal healthcare ("Obamacare") is tick-box medicine, similar to the LCP. Patients should instead be treated as individuals, not as categories.

Thinking within medical ethics is moving towards the concept of "rational suicide", in which suicide is regarded as a rational choice rather than the result of negative psychological factors. The decisions of the doctors and the coroner regarding Kerrie Wooltorton made that case the epitome of abandonment.

Monday, 16 November 2009

the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War (1 September)

the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall (9 November)

These anniversaries mark struggles by countless millions of free people against regimes that were seeking to oppress them.

Yet in our own day, countless millions of free people in supposedly free Western societies face oppression by their own governments. In addition to the lethal oppression of abortion, destructive embryo research and euthanasia, our government is increasingly oppressing innocent children and their parents in its drive to introduce the culture of death into schools. In this, it emulates the Nazi and Communist regimes, which used state power effectively to abduct children from their parents' oversight. The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century shared the Brown government's contempt for the principle that parents are the primary educators of their children, a principle enshrined the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) It is important to note that this principle was enshrined in the UDHR precisely in the light of the indoctrination of children by Nazi rule (which even led to units of the German armed forces being composed of children).

Today there is a disturbing reversal of the post-war drive to protect individual human rights. Baroness (Mary) Warnock, the radical anti-life philosopher, told the House of Lords in 2007:

"At the centre of the moral thinking behind the 1990 [Human Fertilisation and Embryology] Act was a broad utilitarianism. Changes may have come about, and we may all be much more rights-oriented than we were before the passage of the then Human Rights Bill, but in that moral thinking there was very little consideration of human rights. It was much more a broad utilitarian consideration, and I must say a few words in favour of utilitarianism … As legislators, parliamentarians have to be utilitarian in the broadest possible sense … On the committee, we thought that utilitarianism in this broad sense was the philosophy that must lie behind any legislation …" (Hansard, 19 Nov 2007, col. 721)

I was struck this morning, when I went to church before going to the office, by the first reading in today's Mass from the Book of Maccabees. In short, the narrative relates how a section of God's people made an alliance with Israel's pagan rulers. This dissident section betrayed the true religion, and before long the king imposed his paganism on the whole of Israel. We can see today how the Catholic Education Service seems effectively to be making an alliance with the Government to introduce compulsory sex education, betraying Catholic pro-family teaching, and before long, if their legislation is not resisted and defeated, the government will have imposed the culture of death throughout the school system and on another generation of British people.

Considering the millions of unborn children and innocent born persons killed under anti-life governments every year, and the reversal of the post-war drive to protect individual human rights, may we dare to ask the frightening question: Was the sacrifice for freedom made by so many millions in the 20th century in vain?

My answer is that we should only dare to ask that question if we dare to answer with a resounding "No" and to justify that answer by our actions. We will never abandon our children or set aside their birthright to be their primary educators.

Our children will never be surrendered to an anti-life, anti-family culture, so long as there are parents, headteachers, doctors, priests, and pro-life campaigners who are prepared to resist the government's legislation. We must begin our resistance to the government's plans by appealing to our pastoral leaders of all faiths: Please act urgently to protect the families entrusted to you from the government and from politicians of all parties who are determined to destroy them.

(I am grateful to Fr Andrew Southwell, of St Bede's church, Clapham Park, London, for the broad theme of this blog-post: whether 20th century battles against tyranny were fought in vain.)

Saturday, 14 November 2009

What The Daily Telegraph today describes as an "unprecedented coalition" of "leading lawyers, peers and former judges" has warned that the “interim prosecuting policy” for assisted suicide from the director of public prosecutions (DPP) poses "serious dangers for public safety". Read the story in full here as well as an excellent commentary by Lord Carlile (pictured), also in The Telegraph.

The consultation on the DPP guidelines closes in mid-December. There's still time to order flyers from SPUC to alert the public to the dangers of these dangerously flawed guidelines which, according to Lord Carlile, "fly in the face of the principle that the law must afford equal protection to all, irrespective of age, sex race, religion and state of health", and, I would add, irrespective of disability. You can also order SPUC's briefing on making a submission to the DPP. Write to me for leaflets (state quantity) or a briefing at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

I was struck by the simplicity and force of what Archbishop Luis Ladaria, the Secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), said to university students in Rome last week - as reported by Zenit:

Science has proven that there is human life from the moment of conception, the archbishop affirmed, hence, the new being already has a soul and a spirit.

He explained: "If it is a human, it is always a person. There is nothing abstract in him."

From the moment the zygote begins to exist there is no change in its nature, he said.

The archbishop was explaining the teaching in Dignitatis Personae, an Instruction published by the CDF last year. (A useful summary of the Instruction, by Dr (Fr) John I Fleming, the leading bioethicist, can be found here.)

Interestingly, Dame Mary Warnock, whose thinking was used by the British Government in 1990 to justify the legalisation of human embryo experimentation up to 14 days, also concluded that, from conception, the nature of the human embryo does not change.

In July 1982, the British Government invited Mary Warnock to chair a Committee of Inquiry into the ‘social, ethical and legal implications of recent, and potential developments in the field of human assisted reproduction’. The report of that committee is called the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd. 9314, London, 1984.

Read carefully in the next paragraph, taken from the report, the argument which Mary Warnock used to justify lethal experiments on human embryos, up to the 14th day after conception:

"While, as we have seen, the timing of the different stages of development is critical, once the process has begun there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another; all are part of a continuous process, and unless each stage takes place normally, at the correct time, and in the correct sequence, further development will cease. Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive. However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety.” (My emphasis)

In other words (my comments in italics):

“ … once the process has begun … ”: Since this paragraph is all about allowing experiments up to the 14th day after conception, this phrase clearly refers to the moment of conception.

“ … there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another … ”: the Warnock Committee admits there’s no special significance whatsoever (biological or philosophical) about the 14th day after conception, or any other day after conception. The significant thing is that a human life has begun.

“ … Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive … ”: Put plainly, whatever the age of the embryo or unborn child he or she should not really be killed.

“ … However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety … ” The Committee decided to make a completely arbitrary decision in order to fool Parliament and the public into thinking that they had reached a profound conclusion based on weighty scientific evidence, and so we've plumped for 14 days. As Clarke and Linsey noted " … this is a clear case of extrinsic criteria being used to solve a problem which requires the determination of firm and unequivocal intrinsic criteria ... "(Clarke, P.A.B. and A. Linzey Research on Embryos: Politics, Theology and Law. Lester Crook, London, 1988, p. 26.)

Archbishop Ladaria observes in his talk to university students last week that thinking like this led to the concentration camps. Zenit reports:

"Why do Christians give so much importance to the concept of person?" the archbishop asked.

The prelate affirmed: "Man and woman have been created in the image and likeness of God.

"The concept of person is essential for approaches to the mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Man is a person, Christ is a person in his relationship with the Father; he is Son."

Archbishop Ladaria pointed out that this type of argument is ignored when ideologies are promoted that go against life. Often, he lamented, man "is considered a number."

The prelate recalled: "In concentration camps they wanted to eliminate human dignity, so they gave a number. This is a way of offending the person, of reducing him."

Dignity, he explained, goes beyond a number, and is related to "unique and unrepeatable characteristics."

The idea of personhood applying to all human beings, including the unborn child from the beginning of his or her existence, is by no means an exclusively religious concept. It's the universal consensus of humanity as expressed in international human rights instruments, as I explained in my closing address to the 4th World Pro-Life Congress in Saragossa, Spain, last weekend (which is available in English, Spanish and Italian).

Tragically, on the basis of Dame Mary Warnock’s report, which, on its own admission, arbitrarily ignored the right to life of the human embryo, Parliament went on in 1990 to legalise destructive research on human embryos for the following purposes: promoting advances in the treatment of infertility; increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; developing more effective techniques of contraception; developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation; or for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations; and last year Parliament approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, amending the 1990 law, which approved the licensing of more procedures that will harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory and which extends the ways in which embryos can be artificially created and manipulated - including hybrid (animal-human) embryos.

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.